























NEW YORK MUNICIPAL SOCIETY. 


REPORT OE A COMMITTEE 


OF THE 


NEW YORK MUNICIPAL SOCIETY 


SYSTEM OF STREET CLEANING, 

AS ADMINISTERED BY THE BOARD OF POLICE 

IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 


Read. before Hie Society, January 7th, 1S7S. 


NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. 


1878. 





* 




c* 


c 


*> 

* 


si-^sy 


The Committee desire to express their obligations to Alexander 
H. Brown, Esq., M. P. for Much Wenlock, for his kindness in 
collecting and forwarding to them the information and statistics 
as to the street cleaning of London , Liverpool , and Manchester , 
so freely referred to in their Report. 






REPORT. 


By chapter 677 of the Laws of 1872 the Board of Police 
in the city of New York has exclusive power, and is charged 
with the duty of causing all streets, avenues, lanes, gutters, 
wharves, piers, and heads of slips to he thoroughly cleaned 
from time to time, and kept at all times thoroughly cleaned. 
It is to remove from the city daily, and as often as may he 
necessary, ashes, garbage, ruhhish, sweepings of every 
kind, except such dirt and ashes as in the judgment of the 
Board of Health may he suitable to till low and sunken 
lots. 

In addition, it is to remove all offal, dead animals, blood, 
and other refuse matter ; hut as this part of its duty is not 
within the scope of our inquiry, we shall not quote further 
from the statute concerning it, nor notice it in this report, 
except to remark in passing, that the expense of performing 
this work is entirely distinct from and additional to, the ap¬ 
propriation for street cleaning. 

The statute places at the disposal of the Police Board 
suitable and sufficient docks, piers, slips, and berths in slips 
necessary for carrying out their work ; authorizes them to 
contract for the sale of manure, dirt sweepings, and garbage 
at prices to be fixed by themselves, the proceeds to be ap¬ 
plied to reduce the expenses of their work, and empowers 
them to appoint such officers, agents, and employees as they 
may find necessary to perform such duties as can not be 
advantageously performed by members of the police force ; 
fix their compensation, employ laborers, purchase or hire 
horses, carts, and the necessary boats and other materials 
essential to performing their duties. 




6 


The money to pay their expenditures shall be fixed an¬ 
nually by the Board of Apportionment, after consideration 
and revision of the estimate thereof by the Police Commis¬ 
sioners, and inserted in the tax levy. 

Such are the provisions of law regarding street cleaning. 
They are simple, easy to be understood and grant almost 
plenary power for their enforcement. 

Shortly after the passage of this act the Police Board as¬ 
sumed the duties so imposed upon them, and in carrying 
out, or attempting to carry out, those duties, expended in 
the year 1873, $1,097,884.38 ; in the year 1874, $829,828.07 ; 
in the year 1875, $801,405.33 ; in the year 1876, $725,000 ; 
received for the year 1877 an appropriation of $725,000, and 
ask for the year 1878, at the hands of the Board of Appor¬ 
tionment, $1,077,640- 

Have the taxpayers of this city received from those in¬ 
trusted with the expenditure of these enormous sums any¬ 
thing like full value therefor in clean streets ? Are they 
likely, under the present administration, to receive for their 
money such value in the future % If not, why not % and 
what remedy shall they seek ? Such are the questions 
which are to occupy us to-night. We will consider them 
seriatim :— 

First —Do taxpayers receive their money’s worth in clean 
streets ? 

Your committee do not suppose—even in view of some of 
the testimony lately given before the Mayor—that any one 
familiar with the city will seriously maintain that New York 
is thoroughly cleaned or kept cleaned. The Police Commis¬ 
sioners themselves have freely admitted to your committee 
that it is not. But, as we do not propose in this report to 
rely on general assertions or admissions, but upon facts as¬ 
certained from personal inspection,, as we desire above 
everything to be exact, we shall, at the risk of being tedi¬ 
ous, invite you to follow us upon a tour of inspection un¬ 
dertaken by your committee on the 10th day of December, 
1877. Starting from Thirty-seventh street, at Madison ave- 


7 


niie, going east through Thirty-seventh street to First ave¬ 
nue, down First a venue' to Twentieth street, up Twentieth 
street to Second avenue, down Second avenue to Sixth street, 
up Sixth street to Thiid avenue, down Third avenue to Hous¬ 
ton, down Houston to Mulberry, up Mulberry to Bleecker, 
west through Bleecker to South Fifth avenue, down South 
Fifth avenue to Prince, west through Prince to West street, 
north through West to Houston, east through Houston to 
Macdougal, south through Macdougal to Spring, east 
through Spring to Broadway, north up Broadway to 
Houston, east through Houston to Clinton, south through 
Clinton to Madison, west through Madison to New Bowery, 
and from New Bowery through Frankfort to the City Hall. 
It will be observed that our route takes in the heart of the 
city. It was made with these results :— 

Thirty-seventh street, from Madison to Second avenue, 
was passably clean, except at its junction with Third ave¬ 
nue, where the gutters, both of avenue and cross street, had 
not been cleansed for many days; between First and Second 
avenues the street was intolerably dirty, the roadway lit¬ 
tered with garbage and ashes. Second avenue in crossing 
was noticed to have been swept the day before, the dirt 
lying in heaps awaiting removal, no carts in sight, and the 
high wind blowing the compost from the heaps in clouds 
through the air. First avenue, in the judgment of your 
committee, had not been cleansed for a month or more ; it 
was encumbered with heaps of dried mud, ashes, garbage 
and all manner of filth. Twentieth street, between First 
and Second avenues, was in bad order. Second avenue, 
between Twentieth and Sixth streets, was fairly clean. 
Sixth street was very dirty. Third avenue, between Sixth 
and Houston, was, in comparison with other streets, passa¬ 
bly clean, but not in the condition it should have been. 
Great Jones and Bond streets were noticed in passing to be in 
very bad order. Houston and Mulberry streets, were fairly 
clean. Bleecker, at its junction with Broadway and thence 
West, was in bad condition, its gutters full of noisome dirt. 


South Fifth avenue had evidently Ibeen swept from two to 
three days “before, the dirt unremoved, was caked into hard 
mud heaps, which were gradually being distributed over 
the roadway by passing wheels. Wooster and Greene 
streets were noticed in passing to be very dirty. Prince 
street, to West and West to Houston, were fairly clean, but 
Houston, from West to Macdougal, was filthy enough to 
breed a pestilence, the roadway in places deep in mud, 
despite the high and drying wind, was choked with gar¬ 
bage and ashes, the gutters frequently being filled to a 
level with the sidewalk. Of the cross streets some—notice¬ 
ably Washington—were very dirty, others less so; others 
had been swept, but the dirt not removed. Turning into 
Broadway at a quarter before ten, the hour when it is 
filled with citizens hurrying down town, the roadway 
showed no signs of having been swept for at least forty- 
eight hours. Clouds of dirt and dried horse manure 
were whirling through the air, defiling the lungs and 
ruining the garments of every passer-by. The east side of 
town presented a more creditable appearance, the streets 
being fairly clean, though encumbered with ashes awaiting 
removal. In Madison street, however, the dirt and garbage 
reappeared in offensive heaps, and from Catharine street to 
the City Hall none of the streets could be called clean. In 
all this distance your committee met but one gang of street- 
sweepers, five in number, all decrepit, feeble men, the only 
able-bodied one of the party being the gangman, a stalwart 
Irishman, who, with pipe in mouth and hands in his 
pockets, stood leaning against a post inspecting the at¬ 
tempts at work of his followers with languid curiosity. The 
work was not half done, the scraping and brooming was of 
the poorest kind, and when the heaps had been formed the 
men left them in the gutter, no carts following the sweepers. 
Your committee encountered but two carts during the 
whole of their journey, these were loading with ashes, and 
as a high wind was blowing, the ashes were about equally 
divided between the cart, the street, and the passers-by. 


9 


Such is a fair statement of what was noted by your com¬ 
mittee on the last of their many tours of inspection. It is 
needless to multiply like descriptions ; suffice it to say that 
during the past summer the streets were in a far worse con¬ 
dition, especially on the extreme east and west portions of 
the city ; so much worse under the torrid rays of the sun 
that our escape from a general epidemic is cause for con¬ 
gratulation. 

The Police Commissioners claim, in conversation with 
your committee, to clean Broadway and the avenues run¬ 
ning lengthwise of the island three times a week, the other 
streets once a week. 

As to the system followed they respond thus in writing 
to our questions :— 

Q. How often is each district or ward cleansed or swept ? Is there a 
system of rotation of districts or is work done every day in parts of 
each district ¥ 

A. There is no system of rotation of work in districts. Work is done 
each day in parts of districts. Many streets need cleaning oftener than 
others; some are cleaned every day, some two or three times a week. 
The work is applied where it will do the most good and is the most 
needed. 

In other words, there is no regular system upon which 
each street receives a certain amount of labor within a 
certain specified time. Work is spasmodic, and applied 
according to fancied need, not in accordance with definite 
rules. 

Now, this system is palpably insufficient for the needs 
of a great city. The principal streets (and in this we in¬ 
clude not only Broadway and the lateral avenues, but the 
principal cross thoroughfares) should be swept once in 
every twenty-four hours, and this always at night. Ashes 
should be removed regularly before eight a.m. in winter 
and seven a.m. in summer. The whole city should be 
thoroughly cleaned and purified at least once in each week. 

Is such a demand unreasonable ? 

In London, with 1,410| miles of pavement, every prin- 


10 


cipal street is swept once in twenty-four hours, secondary 
streets three times a week, all others at least twice. 

In Liverpool, with 255 miles of pavement, like regula¬ 
tions are enforced. 

In Manchester, with 500 miles of pavement, the principal 
streets, roads, and thoroughfares, together with the markets, 
are cleansed every day, secondary streets thrice a week, all 
others twice. 

In Boston, with 70 miles of pavement and 200 miles of 
Macadam, the principal streets are swept every morning be¬ 
fore eight o’clock, all others twice a week, the Macadam 
once a week and all gutters flushed and cleansed weekly. 

In Philadelphia, with 600 miles of pavement, the princi¬ 
pal thoroughfares are cleaned six times a week, secondary 
streets three times a week, and the whole city is thoroughly 
cleaned once a week. 

In New York, with 250 miles of pavement, the authori¬ 
ties claim to sweep her principal streets three times a week 
and her other streets once a week. If the claim were well 
founded she takes rank below every other important city 
above mentioned. How is it, then, when every citizen knows 
that the claim is baseless and without shadow of right ? 

Is the default owing to inadequate means ? Let us con¬ 
tinue our comparison. 

London is divided into thirty-nine parishes, each of which 
conducts its own scavenging and street cleaning. It would 
be impossible to give returns from them all. Taking the 
parish of St. George, Hanover square, one of the most cen¬ 
tral and important, as an example, we find that it comprises 
forty-two miles of streets. The average cost of cleaning 
these and carting away the refuse—a ride of from three to 
five miles being necessary—for the years 1870 to 1875, was 
£9,078 per annum, or $45,500 gold. Taking the same aver¬ 
age for the whole city—which is certainly fair, as many of 
the parishes are smaller and the carting distance less, the 
annual cost would be $1,774,500, or, in round numbers, 
$1,258 per mile. 


11 


Liverpool, with her 255 miles of pavement, paid for street 
cleaning in 1876, including the emptying and cleansing of 
all the privies of the city, numbering 31,720—a work the 
expense of which is in New York distinct from and addi¬ 
tional to the cost of street cleaning—the sum of £65,864 
Os. 6d, or $329,320 in gold, equivalent to $1,291 per 
mile. 

Manchester, with 500 miles of pavement, paid in 1876 for 
street cleaning £28,412, say $142,060, or $285 per mile. 

Boston in 1876, with 270 miles of streets, paid for street 
cleaning, including removal of ashes and garbage, $263,000 
currency, or $974 per mile. This is net, after deducting 
$46,000 received from sales of garbage. 

Philadelphia, with 600 miles of streets, spent in the first 
ten months of 1877 for street cleaning, including remo¬ 
val of ashes and garbage, $275,000, a total for the year, at 
the same ratio, of $330,000, or $550 per mile. 

New York, with 250 miles of pavement, spent in 1877 for 
street cleaning, exclusive of removing dead animals or 
cleansing privies, $725,000, or $2,900 per mile, and asks for 
the year 1878, $1,077,640, or $1,310 per mile. 

These figures need no commentary. 

Nor is this all. It is a well known fact that, in view of 
the unsatisfactory manner in which the streets are swept 
and garbage collected, most of the private citizens residing 
in the area bounded by Fourteenth street on the south, 
Fourth or Park Avenues on the east, Seventh Avenue on 
the west, and Fifty-ninth street on the north, procure the 
streets in front of their residences to be swept and the ashes 
and garbage to be taken away at their own expense, and 
this at an average monthly expenditure of $2 to each house¬ 
hold. It is impossible to estimate with any degree of ac¬ 
curacy the sum total which, in addition to their taxes, is 
thus paid for street cleaning by private citizens, and we do 
not therefore make the attempt, but the fact is, save by the 
Police Commissioners, universally recognized, that an im¬ 
mense amount of labor is thus spared the Street Cleaning 


12 


Bureau, and should ratably diminish the cost of their 
work. But in answer to our question :— 

Q. What streets are swept by private citizens or persons 
in their employ ? Give full list on this point. 

The commissioners reply: 

A. This department has no knowledge of any streets 
swept by private citizens or persons in their employ. 

And Captain Gunner, the Superintendent of the depart¬ 
ment, informed your committee that the streets in the 
above-mentioned area are all returned by his inspectors as 
regularly swept by his department and that full pay is 
drawn for such service. 

What shall be said of a system which thus ignores a fact so 
universally recognized, which is so administered as to ne¬ 
cessitate the interference of citizens to protect themselves, at 
additional expense, from the discomfort and uncleanliness 
incident to such system, and which has the hardihood to 
claim payment for services which the mere fact of this 
private interference proves never to have been properly 
rendered ? 

Leaving out of account, then, all question of amounts 
paid by private parties for street cleaning, it is evident, in 
view of the official figures above quoted, that the cost of 
cleaning this city is—even were the work well done—enor¬ 
mously disproportioned to that incurred by sister commu¬ 
nities at home and abroad, and that the plea of inadequate 
means can not be set up by the Police Commissioners as a 
competent defence for the condition of the city. One word 
more on this point. Prior to the commitment of the streets 
to the Board of Police, the cleaning thereof was done 
under contract with Messrs. Brown, Devoe & Knapp. This 
contract called for a thorough sweeping of the entire city 
once a week, and for that of Broadway and the principal 
avenues, once in twenty-four hours. The price to be paid 
was $496,000. The amount was satisfactory to the con¬ 
tractors. They never asked an increase, and both 
Mr. Brown and his assignee, Mr. Whiting, testified 


13 


at different times under oath that their profits aver¬ 
aged $100,000 per year, and that could they shake 
themselves absolutely clear from all political influence, 
those profits would be largely increased. The Board 
of Police claim to do no more work than was contemplated 
by the specifications of the Brown contract, nor, in the 
judgment of your committee, do they do it better. 

But,—say people uninformed as to the details of this 
work,—extensive and costly apparatus is necessary in clean¬ 
ing a large city. Have not the Police Board expended, 
necessarily, much of their large appropriation in the pur¬ 
chase of such apparatus % Let us see : 

In May, 1876, three years after the board assumed con¬ 
trol of street cleaning, they owned, as working material, 
five small sweeping machines in good order and six unfit 
for use ; four large machines unfit for use, but in process 
of repair ; four water carts in good order, forty department 
carts in working order and fifty broken and stored away 
as useless. 

These articles were not acquired by purchase, but 
were inherited from Messrs. Brown, Devoe & Knapp, the 
former contractors. In like manner a number of horses 
came into the possession of the board, with their harness, 
both horses and harness being of poor quality. 

Between May, 1876, and May, 1877, the department hav¬ 
ing hired from the city at nominal rent the market buildings 
and wharf at the foot of East Seventeenth street, proceeded 
there to establish shops, utilize and repair the material up¬ 
on their hands, and to get their tools into some order. Your 
committee have inspected this establishment, and can com¬ 
mend the order and system which there prevail. In May, 
1877, the department had eleven small machines in good 
order, four large machines in good order, sixteen water 
carts and eighty-two department carts, all in good condition. 
But it will be noticed that the number of machines has not 
been increased since 1876 ; they have simply been repaired, 
and the increase in the number of carts is due not to pur- 


14 


chase but to repairing and putting together old mate¬ 
rial. 

In June, 1877, the department owned eighty-two horses, 
with proper harness for all the street sweeping machines 
and water carts and for fifty-seven department carts. Of 
these horses the great majority had come down from the 
old contractors, and were generally diseased and lame. 
They have good care and treatment, but hardly one of them 
can do a full day’s work. Forty-two carts remained idle 
for want of horses, and the Commissioners strenuously 
insist that the existing appropriation is insufficient to en¬ 
able them to purchase them. Of the vessels used in carry¬ 
ing away the refuse of the city, the department owns two 
steam tugs, both unfit for towing heavy loads, and in bad 
repair, and thirty-one scows. None of these represent new 
purchases. Tugs and scows are part of the heritage from 
Brown, Devoe & Knapp. 

To eke out their apparatus, the department is forced to 
hire three hundred and twenty-five carts, with a corre¬ 
sponding number of horses and harness, and from thirty to 
thirty-five scows, in addition to those above enumerated. 

It will be seen at once that the apparatus owned by the 
city is utterly inadequate to the work, and that very little, 
if any, money has been expended on the purchase of new 
material or horses for the last five years. Your committee 
desire simply to recall to your recollection that for those 
five years the total appropriations have reached the im¬ 
mense sum of $4,178,617.73, without taking into account 
the cost incurred by private citizens, in keeping clear the 
area heretofore described. 

In view, then, of the facts above stated as to the actual 
condition of the city thoroughfares, the want of regularity 
and system in not apportioning to each street its regular 
time of cleaning, as disclosed by the answer of the depart¬ 
ment, the enormous disproportion of the sums expended by 
the department, when compared with like expenditures in 
other communities, and the failure of the department to 


15 


show anything like an adequate apparatus for carrying out 
their work, your committee feel justified in appealing to 
you to answer the question with which we started—Do the 
taxpayers receive their money’s worth in clean streets?— 
with a prompt and decided negative. 

To the second question, whether the taxpayers are likely 
for the future to receive such value under the present ad¬ 
ministration, your committee feel compelled to return an 
equally prompt and decided negative. 

1. Because the past record of the "board is not such as to 
encourage hope for the future. 

2. Because the demand for $1,077,640, made hy them 
for the year 1878 upon the Board of Apportionment, is, 
upon its face, an outrage upon the public ; and 

Lastly, for reasons which will fully appear in our dis¬ 
cussion of the next question. 

The third question, Why do not the taxpayers receive 
their money’s worth in clean streets ? your committee pro¬ 
poses to treat:— 

First —By setting forth at length the obstacles which the 
Police Commissioners insist obstruct them in the proper 
discharge of their duty, and which, they claim, should 
excuse the imperfect performance of those duties, together 
with the opinion of your committee on such claims ; and 

Second —The facts which, in the judgment of your com¬ 
mittee, are the real causes of the failure of the Police De¬ 
partment to cleanse this city. 

The department claims :— 

First —That they are powerless to enforce the separation 
of ashes and garbage, and that such separation, especially 
in the tenement house district of your city, is practically 
impossible. 

Second —That the commingling of these two articles ren¬ 
ders the whole mass offensive, and brings it within the 
provisions of chapter 604, Laws of 1875, which provides 
that it shall not be lawful for any person to throw, or cast 
any offal, putrid or offensive matter, into the waters of the 


16 


North or East river, or into the Bay of New York or Bari- 
tan or Jamaica Bay, nor to take the same out to sea, 
except under permit of an inspector appointed by the Gov¬ 
ernor. Similar legislation closes the waters of Long Island 
Sound to the deposit of this material. 

“It thus appears,” we quote from the written statement 
of the department hereto annexed, “that there are no 
waters surrounding or in the vicinity of New York where 
this material may be lawfully deposited. As to the dispo¬ 
sition of the material on land the Street Cleaning act pro¬ 
vides that all material in question shall be removed from 
the city daily, except such dirt and ashes as in the judg¬ 
ment of the Board of Health may be suitable to fill sunken 
lots. Your committee,” we still quote, “have knowledge 
how completely the attempts of the Board of Police to 
utilize this vast volume of material in filling up and mak¬ 
ing valuable the waste places of the city have been defeated. 
Further, the sanitary ordinances of Kings, Queens, Bich- 
mond, and Westchester counties, Long Island City, Brook¬ 
lyn, Jersey City, Hoboken, and all the rural districts of 
New Jersey prohibit the deposition of this material within 
their several jurisdictions, and their sanitary officers are 
active and earnest in prohibiting and repelling the deposits. 
It is proper to add that the violations of the statutes and 
ordinances in this regard are misdemeanors, subjecting the 
offending parties to indictment and criminal punishment,” 

The chief difficulty in the way of the Commissioners, then, 
and that on which they dwell with greatest emphasis, is 
their inability to dispose of the mass of refuse collected in 
cleaning the city. Had we a place to dump this in, they 
say, we could keep the city clean, and the reason we can 
not find such place is, that being powerless to enforce the 
separation of ashes and street dirt from garbage, the whole 
mass becomes putrid and offensive, and therefore brings us 
within the provisions of the statute. 

These are the “legal and other difficulties surrounding 
the matter of street cleaning,” so pathetically referred to in 


17 


the protest of a number of gentlemen addressed to the 
Mayor and lately published in the daily press, and so plaint¬ 
ively re-echoed by the Mayor in his formal dismissal of the 
charges brought by himself against the Commissioners. 

In the judgment of your committee this objection is not 
only not well taken by the Police Board, but their constant 
urging of it and insistance upon it are puerile and ridicu¬ 
lous. 

An ordinance of the Common Council requires garbage 
and ashes to be kept separate and put out for collection in 
separate vessels. The Police Board has under its control 
and orders a force of 2,200 men, in high training, each one 
of whom can, as part of his duty, see to the enforcement 
of this ordinance. With this machinery at its disposal, the 
Police Board not only can not show any sustained or con¬ 
tinued effort to enforce this separation, but itself encourages 
and instigates the infraction of the law on this point. 

“ Do you enforce obedience to the ordinance requiring 
ashes and garbage to be kept separate V’ 

We quote from the report of an interview with Com¬ 
missioner Nichols, published in the New York World of 
December 16, a copy of which is hereto annexed : 

“ No ; we used to, but it was found to be impracticable, 
for the reason that it required us to have twice as many 
carts as we use, and that entailed an expenditure we could 
not afford under the present appropriation. You can easily 
see what an additional labor and expense would be re¬ 
quired to send two carts where we now send only one.” 

The inhabitants of the tenement house district are not, as 
a rule, noted for observance of sanitary laws, but, in view 
of the above statement, are they to be blamed for the ad¬ 
mixture of garbage with their ashes when the Department, 
whose business it is to enforce their separation, deliberately 
mixes, under the eyes of the tenants, the very substances 
which the law proclaims shall, under penalty of fine, be 
kept distinct ? 

Your committee are aware that about two years ago an 


18 


effort was made by the Police Board to enforce the sepa¬ 
rating ordinance; that the inhabitants of the city, on re¬ 
ceiving notice of such effort, proceeded with great unanimity 
to provide themselves with iron and tin vessels, as recepta¬ 
cles of garbage, and endeavored to keep it separate and 
distinct, and your committee charges that the failure at that 
time to carry out this system of separation was chiefly, if 
not entirely owing to the admixture of these substances by 
the servants of the Police Board in the carts sent for their 
collection. 

Another cause of the failure to separate is the irregularity 
with which the department carts make their rounds. 

“ How is it,” we continue from the same report in the 
World , “ that within a block of here, on Mott street, there are 
at this hour of the morning many barrels full of garbage V 

Answer— u That is because we have not scows enough to 
remove the stuff. We have to hire them all the time, and 
even then they are not sufficient, because we have to go out 
to sea to dump, and we can not do that when there is a high 
wind without imperiling the lives of our men. While the 
scows are lying full at the dock, waiting to be taken out 
and unloaded, it is useless to fill our carts with stuff which 
we can not remove ; so we have to wait for the scows to re¬ 
turn from sea.” 

Here is the whole story in a few words. Garbage accu¬ 
mulates quickly, and in the narrow, close rooms of the 
tenement house must of necessity be gotten rid of. The 
only way for these poor people to get rid of it is to place it 
in the open air to await removal. Removal being delayed, 
the receptacles are needed for further use, the contents are 
dumped into the gutter or into ash barrels, and fester there 
until the Department gets ready to cart it away. By that 
time it has decayed to such an extent as to be incapable of 
separation, or, if separated, to be of any use, and is thrown 
into the ash cart to distil foul liquids which, under its mo¬ 
tion, trickle through into the street, poisoning the air and 
creating a terrible nuisance. 


19 


Your committee do not propose to add one word to the 
foregoing statements of one of the Police Commissioners. 
Those statements establish the fact that absolutely no effort 
is made by the department to separate the garbage from the 
ashes and street dirt of this city. But this very admixture 
of garbage is the cause why no place can be secured for the 
disposal of the refuse with which it is mixed. The legis¬ 
lation of which the Police Board complains is eminently 
proper and just. We do not propose to permit our rivers 
and bays to become a mass of corrupting matter, nor do we 
blame adjacent communities for protecting their shores 
from this disgusting and pestilential visitation. 

In the judgment of your committee not one ounce of this 
city’s refuse need be taken to sea or dumped into the 
waters of the East or North river or of Long Island Sound. 
The garbage once separated—and it is but ten per cent, of 
the whole amount of city refuse—the residue, ashes and 
street sweepings, are not offal, putrid or offensive matter 
within the statute, and need not be removed from the city 
daily, if at all. Much of it is immediately available for fill¬ 
ing low lands. The street sweepings have a certain value 
as manure, and were formerly disposed of for that purpose, 
bringing in something like $20,000 per annum. Ashes when 
screened make an excellent substratum for pavements and 
filling for low lands, besides yielding a large percentage of 
available fuel. Dumping grounds for both these materials 
might without offence be established in the city or on lands 
hard by to be acquired for the purpose, and if it were once 
known that these two materials could be found in quanti¬ 
ties at certain known places and at fixed prices a market 
would soon be established for them. 

The garbage, taken when fresh and without admixture, 
commands a ready sale at prices which will nearly pay the 
expenses of its collection. Your committee, accompanied 
by two of the Police Commissioners, visited an establish¬ 
ment at East New York, seven miles back of Long Island 
City, where large quantities of swine are raised for market 


20 


on the garbage supplied from three or four hotels of this 
city. The proprietor pays these hotels about $4,000 per 
annum for their ashes and garbage (the former screened 
supplying him with all the fuel for his machinery) and re¬ 
moves them this long distance between nine and twelve 
o’clock each night. 

When confronted with the Police Commissioners he pro¬ 
fessed himself ready to purchase all the garbage they could 
deliver to him at any vacant island on Long Island Sound. 
Subsequently your committee procured a perfectly respon¬ 
sible man who offered to receive on the docks and carry 
away at his own expense all the garbage of the city. He 
has subsequently offered, and his offer reappears in the 
Herald of December 26, 1877, to collect and remove all the 
garbage of the city for a period of ten years, at $1,000 per 
year. This contract, however, the Corporation Counsel 
holds the Police Board have no power to make, and there¬ 
fore no action was taken in regard to it. Your committee 
cite the offer as showing that the garbage can be readily 
disposed of if once separated and secured. That this sep¬ 
aration can be effected by persistent and honest efforts, 
conducted on a proper system, your committee have not the 
slightest doubt. 

Such system should commence with the establishment of 
a force charged with the collection of garbage alone. As 
this constitutes but ten per cent, of the city refuse it is idle 
to claim that double the present number of carts would be 
required to secure its removal. Each garbage cart should 
be closed with a tight fitting lid (drawings of those used in 
Liverpool are herewith submitted), should be distinctively 
painted and lettered, and should make its daily rounds at 
specified hours with exact punctuality. Each cart should 
have at least two men appointed to it, who, if garbage is 
not brought out for removal, should enter houses to seek it. 
Householders should be notified of the hour of the pro¬ 
posed arrival of the cart and directed to place the garbage 
in separate vessels ready for removal by it. Any default 


21 


to comply with this direction should he promptly reported 

it must he remembered that the Police Commissioners 
would have in addition to the cartmen the whole police 
force at their disposal for this purpose—and whatever 
penalty is imposed for such default should he rigidly en¬ 
forced. 

In Boston, where this separate collection is carried well- 
nigh to perfection, the penalty ($5 for each offence) is im¬ 
posed, not upon the tenant in the tenement house, hut upon 
the landlord, and the penalty has seldom to he enforced 
but once. The entire cost of collecting garbage in Boston 
for 1876, with a force of 100 men, was $79,000," from which 
is to he deducted $30,000 received from sales, making net 
cost $49,000. 

In Philadelphia the separate system prevails, and your 
committee desires here to quote from a letter addressed to 
them by the President of the Board of Health in that city, 
the whole of which will he found appended to this report 
as an exhibit. 

“ As to the question of garbage, we had much difficulty in 
the early history of our street cleaning, until we made se¬ 
parate contracts and let the contractors fight it oat—I mean 
the street cleaning and removal of ashes contractor vs. the 
garbage collectors. Now we have little mixing, if any. If 
garbage is taken up systematically, daily through the hot 
season, and tri- or semi-weekly during the winter, as per 
printed papers on that subject herewith sent you—there 
will be no occasion for mixing, for there will be nothing to 
mix. But if it is left uncollected for days, these poor peo¬ 
ple must get rid of it, and putting it in with ashes is the 
least offensive to them and the most natural and least ex¬ 
pensive way to get rid of the nuisance. Systematic removal 
of garbage daily, tri- and semi-weekly will cure mixing. 
The proper bureau should keep a book of complaints, 
where all citizens can register their complaints and the con¬ 
tractors be immediately notified of them and to remove the 
garbage. If not promptly done, do it at his expense, no 


22 


matter what it costs. The garbage contractors utilize most 
of the garbage in feeding hogs out of the city, on its out¬ 
skirts, where it will give but little offence. Eternal vigilance 
on these contractors is, we find, the only remedy.” 

Your committee do not doubt that at first there would be 
difficulties in the enforcement of this separation ; but that 
these difficulties would be insuperable, as declared by the 
Police Commissioners, is simple nonsense. Let it be 
thoroughly known that at certain hours in the morning or 
evening garbage would be called for and collected ; let the 
habit once be established of meeting the garbage cart with¬ 
out disappointment or delay, and the collection would soon 
be made as expeditiously and regularly as the collection of 
letters from the mail boxes. 

Once collected, we have shown that it can be disposed of 
at profitable prices. Will it be believed that the Police 
Commissioners, instead of utilizing this refuse, are to-day 
collecting it, conveying it away at large cost in their scows 
to Pamrapo, N. J., and on reaching this destination are 
actually paying $20 of the public money per scow load for 
the right of depositing it on lands, the owners of which 
should be glad to pay for it at remunerative rates if de¬ 
livered to them in dock at Yew York ? As most people 
would not believe this fact, we beg to refer to a communica¬ 
tion from Mr. Commissioner Nichols, addressed to your 
committee under date of December 28, and hereto ap¬ 
pended, in confirmation of this statement. It is as follows: 


December 28 , 1877 . 

Dear Sir:— Your favor of yesterday is received, and I hasten to an¬ 
swer your inquiry. The Bureau of Street Cleaning has lately, for want 
of better opportunity, been compelled to dispose of the street cleaning 
material, in New Jersey, paying the parties who receive and unload it 
at their own cost, $20 per scow load. 

This is the cheapest opportunity now offered for wasting street clean¬ 
ing material. The towage is short, in smooth water, and our tugs with 
trains of scows, can go with the tide both ways. At this season of the 


23 


year, the open sea can not be encountered with the insufficient tugs and 
water craft of the bureau. 

Mr. Swift, in July last, proposed to receive on board of his vessels, 
and remove all the garbage from the city of New York, for a term of 
five or ten years. 

You will notice, first, that Mr. Swift wants garbage only, and he 
wants all the garbage irom the city. The Bureau of Street Cleaning 
can not give him garbage only, nor can they give him all (nor half) of 
the garbage of the city of New York ; second, he wants a contract for 
five or ten years, which the Board of Police can not make. 

Yery respectfully, 

SIDNEY P. NICHOLS. 

Well and appropriately is the word “wasted” used 
here. A material, which if handled with judgment and 
ordinary care should return at least thirty per cent on the 
cost of its collection, is not only given away, hut large sums 
of money are needlessly squandered in inducing the recip¬ 
ients to accept the gift. A more grievous case of misman¬ 
agement in office is rarely exhibited, and when, in addition 
to this, we see that the Police Department not only makes 
no effort to separate garbage from other refuse, but actually 
encourages and incites its admixture, we can not listen with 
much patience to its reiterated clamor for more legislation 
and a longer purse as remedies for the evils of which it 
is practically the author. Nor do we consider that the 
want of dumping places is a valid excuse for its short¬ 
comings ; but, remembering that the great bulk of the 
refuse of the city, if properly cleared of garbage, is both 
inoffensive and useful, and that no effort whatever is made 
to render it thus inoffensive and useful, we are rather 
forced to the conclusion that intelligent and capable men, 
in thus putting forward such excuses, are simply avail¬ 
ing themselves of the popular ignorance of the details of 
their work to rest idle when they should be most active. 
Similar excuses if advanced in the conduct of private busi¬ 
ness would be held to stultify their authors, and the public 
can not consent to accept them as valid until the Police 


24 


Commissioners have shown long-continued, persistent, and 
systematic efforts to carry out their duties in separating 
garbage, and in disposing of it and of the remaining refuse 
in a proper and business-like method. 

The Police Board claims, secondly, that they have not the 
proper apparatus for the conduct of their work ; that they 
need horses, carts, sweeping machines, water carts, scows, 
and steam tugs, and that they have no means wherewith to 
buy them. Your committee admits the first clause of their 
claim as true. They do need all these things, and need 
them sorely. The horses and carts other than those owned 
by the department are hired by the day; they are 
wretched beyond description, the carts holding but thirty 
cubic feet to the forty-one cubic feet of the department 
carts ; the horses are the most feeble and decrepit of their 
kind, unable in most instances to drag anything like a full 
load, and only then to totter through the streets, consuming 
double the time required by an ordinarily active farm horse 
in reaching a given point. The department hires 320 of these 
carts at a cost of $3.25 each per day—a daily expenditure 
of $i,040. Did the department own its own carts, horsed by 
strong, active horses, such as can now be bought at from $90 
to $150 each, this expenditure would be reduced at least 
thirty-three and one-third per cent., provided the same 
number of carts was found necessary, which it would not 
be. The street sweeping machines should be largely mul¬ 
tiplied. If the city were once thoroughly cleansed by 
hand labor it could be kept clean by machines much 
more extensively and economically than by hand labor, 
as at present. If the present system of dumping refuse 
at sea is to be continued, the department should own 
its own tugs and scows. Of the latter at least five should 
be especially built for the purpose, possess independent 
steam power capable of making nine knots an hour, and be 
self-dumping, thus dispensing with the labor now found 
necessary in unloading. 


25 


These can be obtained at $35,000 each—a total of. $175,000 

Add 200 horses at $150 each. 30,000 

150 carts at $70 each. 10,000 

Harness therefor, say. 2,000 

10 machines at $350 each. 3,500 

10 sprinklers to accompany them, at $250 each. 2,500 


Total cost. $223,000 


These articles, with what is already owned by the Depart¬ 
ment, would abundantly equip it for honest work. Why 
does it not own it % The Commissioners say it is because 
they have not the means under the present appropriation. 
Here your committee desire to join issue with them and to 
express their deliberate conviction, after full examination 
of the subject, that the amount necessary to purchase this 
equipment could, if the Street Cleaning Department were 
faithfully and judiciously managed, be saved from the ap¬ 
propriation of $725,000 made them this year, and the streets, 
in addition, be cleaned as they never have been cleaned 
before. Our reason for this belief will be given later on. 

Having stated as fairly and honestly as possible the 
claims of the Police Board to public indulgence, your com¬ 
mittee now propose to set forth their own judgment as to 
the real cause of the failure of that Board to properly 
cleanse the city. It is not far to seek. The words “ politi¬ 
cal influence” and their invariable attendant “patronage” 
supply the key. Your committee charge that the Street 
Cleaning Bureau of this city is managed rather in the inter¬ 
est of party than of clean streets ; that its chief office is to 
provide sinecures for ward politicians and employment for 
those whose votes keep ward politicians and those of higher 
grade behind them in power; that much of the public 
moneys disbursed by its managers goes to men who yield 
little if any value in return, and that the money so 
diverted from its legitimate object should, if rightly 
and properly expended, suffice not only to keep 
this city abundantly clean and purchase all necessary 










26 


material for so doing, but yield a surplus for return to the 
city treasury at the end of the year. We further charge 
that the wages paid laborers are excessive, much above 
the merit of employees, and greater than those laborers 
could command from any private employer ; that such 
wages are paid knowingly by the Police Board with full 
cognizance of such facts, and are so paid for political pur¬ 
poses ; that the appointments to office and emplo 3 r ment in 
labor in no degree depend upon the merits of the candidate, 
or his ability to fill the vacant place ; that such appoint¬ 
ments and employment are awarded as matters of patron¬ 
age, chiefly by men high in power in municipal politics, to 
whose commands the Police Commissioners are forced 
to lend an obedient ear at peril of their own peace, if 
not of their places, in case of non-compliance. We 
charge that under this system anything like proper 
organization, rigid economy, due discharge of duty, 
has no place ; that, in one word, the appropriations of 
the Department are wasted, and that nothing like adequate 
value is rendered therefor. These are grave charges, but 
we do not advance them without proof. 

When the care of the streets was committed to the Police 
Board one reason for the change was, that having control 
of a large body of organized men already under pay, they 
could utilize them as inspectors and overseers of the labor¬ 
ers to be employed. The statute authorizes the Board to 
appoint agents and employees to perform such duties only 
as can not be advantageously performed by members of the 
police force, and the implication here shows clearly enough 
the prevailing idea in the minds of those who drafted the 
bill. Now the fact is, that the only duty regarding street 
cleaning performed by members of the police force proper, 
with the exception of the officers hereinafter named, is the 
reporting by patrolmen of streets which in their judgment 
need attention. 

Let us glance at the roster of the Street Cleaning Bureau. 

There are five superintendents of the bureau so called, 


27 


whereof three are police captains at $2,000 a year each, one 
roundsman at $1,200 and one officer at $1,200. 

The salaries of these officers are charged on hoth police 
and street cleaning appropriations, being paid from one and 
repaid into the Comptroller’s office at the end of the year 
from the other, an unnecessary and vicious practice, involv¬ 
ing a useless increase of the street cleaning appropriation 
and a possible loss of interest to the city. 

There is a Deputy Inspector at $2,500 a year, a Superin¬ 
tendent of stables at $1,500, a chief clerk at $3,000, a pay¬ 
roll clerk at $2,000, a time clerk at $1,500, a clerk to the 
Commissioners at $1,500, and three minor clerks at $1,200 
each. 

There are twenty-one foremen at $1,000 each, forty-six 
gangmen at $2 a day each, fourteen dump inspectors at 
$800 per annum each, two telegraph operators at $900 each 
(entirely distinct, as we understand, from the regular police 
operatives), sixteen watchmen at dumps at $2 a day each, 
two tug captains at $1,440 each, two engineers at $1,140, 
each, and six other employees on tugs at $720 each. Then 
there are detailed to Captain Gunner, Superintendent, an 
additional foreman and gangman, and two additional gang- 
men are detailed as clerks in the office. The salaries of 
these last mentioned four officials are not given, but, we 
presume, are at the same rate as those of others of like 
rank. 

The pay roll of salaried officials, exclusive of the Com¬ 
missioners and gangmen, foots up, in the estimates of the 
department for 1878, $63,880, and this is payable in good 
and bad weather alike, whether work be done or no. Your 
committee has obtained, and annexes hereto, a list of the 
patriots who kindly serve as foremen and gangmen, together 
with the occupations with which they amuse their leisure 
hours. Time would fail to describe them all; a few in¬ 
stances must suffice. One is a merchant, a member of a 
down-town firm; three are liquor dealers, five are clerks. 


28 


one keeps a livery stable, one is a barber, another a baker, 
and one ingenuously describes himself as a speculator. 
How long would these men remain in their positions if the 
Police Commissioners were doing the street cleaning of this 
city as private contractors ? Not one hour. Without men¬ 
tioning names, this admission has been made to your com¬ 
mittee by those in authority. Let it be remembered here 
that the department has at its disposal a number of officers 
who, too old for active patrol duty or invalided in the ser¬ 
vice, must be, and are provided for at public expense, and 
who are admirably calculated to fill the positions now occu¬ 
pied by the lazy drones above described. Not one of them 
is detailed for service. So much for our first charge. 

Now as to labor. Common laborers are paid at the rate 
of $1.60 per day of eight hours ; scowmen, $1.50 per day ; 
cartmen, with cart and horse, $3.25 per day. The labor 
roll foots up in the estimate for 1878 at $752,360. We take 
the estimates of the department—although the Board of Ap¬ 
portionment has fixed the appropriation far below these es¬ 
timates—as showing what amount the ripened experience 
and judgment of the Police Board regards as absolutely 
essential to proper street cleaning in New York. 


This labor pay-roll is thus classified :— 

500 laborers, $9.60 per week. $249,600 

325 cartmen, $3.25 per day. 329,550 

175 scow laborers, $7.50 per week. 68,250 

50 gangmen, $12 per week. 31,200 

50 P. D. drivers, $10.50 per week. 27,300 

30 machine and water-cart drivers, $12 per week. 18,720 

16 watchmen at dumps, $2 per diem. 11,680 

16 scow trimmers at dumps, $1.50 per diem. 8,760 

10 watchmen and hostlers, $2 per diem. 7,300 


Total .-. $752,360 


It is a somewhat peculiar fact that, although in their 
written answer to our question the Commissioners acknow¬ 
ledge that only seventy per cent, of their ordinary force is 













29 


employed during the interval when street sweeping is pre¬ 
vented by snow and frost and its resumption in the spring, 
yet in the above estimate they demand amounts equivalent 
in the case of laborers, scowmen, gangmen, and Police 
Department cart drivers to wages for six days’ labor in 
every week through the entire year, and in the other 
classes of laborers, including hired cart men, to wages for 
seven days’ labor in each week throughout the entire year. 
No allowance seems to be made for bad weather or diminu¬ 
tion of force during the winter months. 

There is no necessity for us to dwell on the class of men 
employed as laborers by the department. Any one taking 
the trouble to notice the first gang of street sweepers he 
may meet will be struck by the wretched and feeble con¬ 
dition of the men. Few among them are capable of the ex¬ 
ertion necessary to do a full day’s work, and hardly one 
could command any private situation requiring strength or 
address. So, too, with the carts and cartmen ; both are 
badly, very badly qualified to render honest work. 

The wages paid the sweepers are grossly in excess of 
what they could command elsewhere. The Commissioners, 
in course of conversation on the Brown contract, said to 
your committee that the reason Brown made so much out 
of his contract was that he only paid his men $1 each per 
day. “ Why don’t you pay the same wages?” we asked. 
“Just come in here,” was the reply, “and attempt to lower 
the wages of these men or to lengthen the number of hours 
in their day and see how long you would remain, and how 
pleasant it would be made for you while you stayed.” And 
this admission was coupled with the acknowledgment that 
the laborers in question were, as alleged by your com¬ 
mittee, poor miserable objects, hardly able, in many in¬ 
stances, to stand without the support of their brooms and 
hoes. 

Your committee submits that no further proof is needed 
as to its charge on the question of the capacity ot the labor 
employed and of the undue amount of wages paid therefor. 


30 


It would simply call attention to the fact that if proper 
wages were paid, and by proper wages we mean not to ex¬ 
ceed $30.00 per month, a saving of thirty-seven per cent, 
would be at once effected in this item of the estimates 
alone. 

Now, how are the appointments in the Street Cleaning 
Bureau made ? One of our first questions to the Depart¬ 
ment was this:— 

Q. State on whose recommendation these men (the foremen and gang- 
men), were appointed, giving names ? 

A. The records of this department do not show on whose recommen¬ 
dation clerks were employed j many of them have been in the service 
many years $ as to foremen and dump inspectois, they have been gen¬ 
erally employed on the recommendation of reputable citizens, who 
have vouched for their fidelity and efficiency. 

The archives of the department do not enable us to give the names of 
the gentlemen recommending the several such employees, and if they 
did we should be unwilling to furnish their names to the public without 
the assent of those gentlemen. 

Should your committee permit itself to indulge in con¬ 
jecture rather than exact facts, the names of the reputable 
gentlemen aforesaid would present themselves with but lit¬ 
tle research. 

The department is equally non-committal as to the calling 
and occupation of these officials. They say: “ So far as 
this department has any knowledge, they (the foremen and 
gangmen) did not exercise any ostensible calling other than 
that called for by their duties in the Street Cleaning De¬ 
partment.” The fact is—and it is as well recognized as the 
daily rising of the sun—that these appointments are in the 
hands of those who rule the so-called politics of this mis¬ 
governed city, are looked upon as properly belonging to 
them, and are made at their behest, with no demur at the 
character and fitness of the nominee, no matter what that 
character and fitness may be. This has been acknowledged 
to members of your committee by those in a position to 


31 


know all the facts in the case, with a minuteness of detail 
and particularity of incident that leave no room for doubt. 

So with the employment of laborers your committee 
asked:— 

Q. Describe the system of appointments to work in your depart¬ 
ment. By whom are laborers engaged, and on whose recommendation ? 
Give full details. 

A. Laborers are appointed or employed by the Commissioners, most¬ 
ly upon the recommendation ot reputable citizens desiring to do an act 
of charity to worthy men, in finding them the means for the support of 
their families. 

Here the reputable citizen makes his appearance again, 
still modestly veiling his face. But it may be news to him, 
as it certainly was to your committee, that his praiseworthy 
humanity has been able to transform an organization in¬ 
tended to clean streets into a charitable bureau for sup¬ 
port of paupers. The fact is that the Superintendent of 
Street Cleaning has absolutely no choice whatever in the 
selection of his men. They come to him with tickets from 
citizens so reputable and of such influence that he is forced, 
whatever his opinion of the candidate, to enroll him forth * 
with. 

Here is the plague spot of our municipal administration, 
the root of the disease that is sapping our very life as a 
city. Behind these gentlemen in the Police Board stands a 
power which forces them to employ men whom they know 
and acknowledge to be unfit for their places; to make 
places for others who render no work in return for the 
money which they draw; to hire and discharge with no 
reference to capability or the quality or quantity of the 
work done or to be done. 

Is it right, is it honest for them to submit ? Have they 
no duties to those who provide the means, as well as to 
those whose influence gives them the positions they hold? 
Are they not, in acquiescing silently in a system which 
they of all men know to be corrupt and debasing, consult¬ 
ing their own ease and emolument to the detriment of the 


32 


public good? In the judgment of your committee there 
can be but one answer to this question. 

From this wicked system of political patronage, this bar¬ 
ter of office and employment for corrupt ends, grow all the 
evils of which we as taxpayers have to complain. Why go 
further into details and recount afresh the system or want 
of system which sweeps a street and piles up the dirt days 
before the carts are ready to remove it; which makes no 
regular provision of vessels to carry away refuse and gives 
this as an excuse for the accumulation of festering garbage 
in the open street; which carries out to sea at large expense 
and casts away material which, if properly utilized, would 
yield large revenues to the city coffers ; which, not content 
with this waste, casts after it handfuls of money in 
payment for the privilege of giving what should rather 
be eagerly sought at remunerative prices; which 
makes no effort to separate garbage from ashes, and 
cries out that such separation is an impossibility; which, in 
one word, is lavish in demand, rich in excuse, utterly want¬ 
ing in performance. So long as the present appointing and 
employment system continues so long will our streets re¬ 
main filthy and our money be wasted. Money without end 
may be appropriated, the legislature may pass countless 
laws to meet every possible contingency—all will be of no 
avail till public officials are brought to recognize the fact 
that in dealing with public funds it is their duty to get full 
value for every cent expended as though that money were 
their own ; that in appointing their subordinates fitness and 
capacity are alone to be considered; that the largest amount 
of work is to be secured for the smallest amount of pay, 
and that in place of crying, out at every obstacle which pre¬ 
sents itself it is better to set about discovering the way to 
surmount it. 

One word more under this head. It will have been no¬ 
ticed that the city has been much cleaner within the last 
three weeks than for some time previous. By returns from 
the department to date of writing it will appear that for the 


33 


week ending December 1, tlie Department removed 1,632 
loads of street dirt and 13,243 loads of ashes ; for the week 
ending December 8, 2,322 loads of street dirt and 15,089 
loads of ashes, and for the week ending December 15, 
10,642 loads of street dirt and 15,662 loads of ashes. The 
Department accounts for this sudden rise in percentage of 
loads removed by their discovery of the obliging persons 
who consent to take the refuse at only $20 per scow load, 
thus affording them dumping places near the city. It may 
be invidious, but your committee is somewhat disposed to 
connect both discovery and rise in percentage with the 
active discussion on this subject recently inaugurated in 
the public press, the renewed and somewhat persistent 
inquiries of your committee, and last, but not least, sundry 
hints, since ripened into certainty, of the preferment of 
charges against the Commissioners for neglect of duty. We 
can only hope that our suspicions may be falsified by the 
continued activity of the Department. 

Lastly, as to our charge, that the appropriation given to 
the department is amply sufficient to clean the streets thor¬ 
oughly if properly administered, and in addition purchase 
all necessary material for so doing, we presume that if we 
have succeeded in proving our other allegations, this will 
stand admitted. Still we propose to institute a brief com¬ 
parison between the cost of street cleaning in New York 
with that expended in other cities, and of the comparative 
number of men employed. 

New York employs, exclusive of the Commissioners at 
the head of the bureau, but counting the gangmen and 
dump inspectors given above, 109 salaried officials, at sti¬ 
pends ranging from $3,000 to $720 each, and about 1,200 
laborers of different classes—in round numbers a total force 
of 1,300 men, in which there is a ratio of one official to 
every ten men employed. 

Boston does all her work—and it is well done—with this 
force:— 


34 


1 Superintendent. 

2 Clerks (one at $1,600 and one at $1,100). 
6 Foremen (at $90 per month each). 

80 Street Sweepers. 

10 Men in charge of machines. 

3 Stable Foremen ($1,200 each). 

100 Garbage Men. 

110 Ashmen. 

312 in all. 


The laborers employed are of the best class of workmen, 
paid high wages ($52 per month) and employed permanently 
through the year. They are selected by the superintendent, 
who alone is responsible for their employment, with regard 
only to their qualifications for work and without respect to 
political influence or patronage. Slovenly work, intoxica¬ 
tion or neglect of duty in any form is followed by a warn¬ 
ing, the second offence by peremptory dismissal without 
hope of reinstatement. The entire cost of the city’s clean¬ 
ing in 1876 was, under the system of dividing street sweep¬ 
ing, collection of ashes and collection of garbage, as fol¬ 
lows :— 

For street cleaning proper, including services of inspector.. $130,000 

Whereof $104,000 was for labor. 

For collection of ashes. $100,000 

Less received from sales. 16,000 

- 84,000 

$79,000 
30,000 

- 49,000 

Total.. $263,000 

The city owns all its apparatus, which is of the best 
description. The above items include horse keep, shoe¬ 

ing, repairs to material, etc. 

In Liverpool, with the same number of miles of paved 


For collecting garbage. 
Less sales.. 










35 


streets to be cared for as New York, the following staff is 
employed :— 

1 General Superintendent. 

1 Checker. 

5 Carbolic Acid Men. 

5 Night District Inspectors. 

1 Wharf Inspector. 

8 Checkers and Tip Men. 

52 Midden Men, who cleanse privies. 

16 Day Inspectors of Districts. 

3 Day Wharf Inspectors. 

3 Storekeepers. 

49 Trough Closet Men. 

69 Tip and Wharf Men. 

80 Barrow Men. 

220 Sweepers. 

16 Urinal Cleansers. 

4 Boatmen. 

41 Ashpit Men. 

7 Watermen. 

4 Horse Keepers.. 

7 Watchmen. 

12 Yard and Engine Men. 

8 Millwrights. 

15 Smiths. 

1 Painter. 

1 Saddler. 

175 Carters, Drivers, and Police. 

804 in all. 

Deduct from these 117 men engaged in emptying priv¬ 
ies and cleansing urinals, work which does not in New 
York come within the scope of the Street Cleaning Depart¬ 
ment, and we have a total of687, including officials, engaged 
in street cleaning proper, or about fifty per cent, less than 
employed in New York for the same number of miles 


36 

of streets. The entire cost, including privy work, was £65,- 
864 or $330,000. We have already taxed your patience too 
long to ask your attention to minute details as to Liverpool 
street cleaning, interesting as it is ; particulars thereof, kind¬ 
ly furnished us by Mr. Reynolds, the superintendent, are 
hereto annexed for perusal at your leisure, but we must 
call your notice to the following circular, which we copy 
verbatim:— 

Municipal Offices, Dale Street, ? 
Scavenging Department, Liverpool, Dec. 7, 1876. $ 

Mr.- 

Sir : —I beg to submit .a list of prices, at which various kinds of ma¬ 
nure can be supplied during the next year. 


NIGHT SOIL PER BOAT, LOADED FREE AT TOWN WHARVES. 


Delivered be¬ 
tween Jan. 1, 
and April 30. 

Six to twelve boats £3 10 
Casual boats. 4 10 


Delivered be¬ 
tween May 1, 
and June 30. 

£3 00 
3 10 


Delivered be¬ 
tween J uly 1, 
and Aug. 31. 

£2 10 

3 10 


Delivered be 
tween Sept. 1 
and Dec. 31. 

£3 10 
4 10 


STREET SWEEPINGS PER BOAT, LOADED FREE AT TOWN WHARVES. 


Six to twelve boats, 
Casual boats. 


Jan., Feb., M’ch, Ap’l, 
Sept., Oct, Nov., Deo. 

£3 10 

4 10 


May, June, July, 
and August. 

£4 00 
4 10 


Mr. Isaac Hilsby, salesman and collector, attends the Liverpool 
Vegetable, Corn and Hay Markets, also Ormskirk every Thursday, and 
will receive your commands. 

RICHARD S. REYNOLDS, 

Superintendent. 

A like circular gives prices of same material delivered 
by rail. 

This has a somewhat different ring from the plaintive 
cries of our Police Board for places in which to throw away 
valuable material, and the contrast between the Scavenging 
Department of Liverpool conducting an active market for 
its refuse and our Commissioners paying away for each 






37 


scow load “ wasted ” an amount equal on the average to 
that received by the Liverpool Superintendent is, to say the 
least, striking. As will be seen from a table hereto an¬ 
nexed, out of 205,989 tons of refuse collected during the 
year, there were thus disposed of 177,121 tons, leaving to be 
gotten rid of by the city 28,868 tons. A boat load at Liver¬ 
pool contains, say 48 tons. Of these, therefore, about 
3,600 were disposed of during the year, bringing in £8,699 
10s. 7d., or say $43,500, gold. 

A full abstract of all the receipts and expenditures of the 
Liverpool Scavenging Department is herewith submitted. 
We desire to call your notice to a single item. The entire 
superintending and clerical force is as follows : 


One Superintendent. 

.at £450 per 

year,= $2,250 

One Salesman and Collector, 



salary and commission 



on sales. 


249 14s. 

“ = 1,250 

One Chief Clerk .... 

. salary 

175 

“ 875 

One Clerk. 


85 

“ = 425 

One Clerk. 


91 

“ — 455 

Total salaries... 

.£1,046 14s. 

— $5,255 


A striking contrast again to the estimates of the Police 
Board on this head. 

In Manchester, England, which stands to-day the model 
street cleaning city of the world, the force employed in the 
cleaning of the city proper, including attention to privies, 
is as follows: 

1 Superintendent. 

6 Inspectors. 

12 Yardmen. 

11 Grideners. 

257 Sweepers. 

64 Drivers. 

351 in all. 

3 










38 


To these must be added for the outlying districts beyond 
the city proper, 143 men, whereof 13 are inspectors, the rest 
workmen, making an entire total of 494. The city is dis¬ 
tricted, each district has an inspector, who is responsible 
for the conduct of the men under his charge and the proper 
performance of the work. Each district is again subdivided 
into sections, each section comprising eleven men, thus 
classified:—One leader, a laborer who does his share of 
work like the others, but is responsible for the condition of 
his section; two fullers, six sweepers, and two supernu¬ 
meraries for early morning work. To each section 
two carts and drivers are appointed, it being an in¬ 
variable rule that the dirt shall be taken up as soon 
as gathered. Eight hours constitute the laboring day, but 
each man must sweep not less than 3,500 square yards of 
surface during the day. The inspectors have a book con¬ 
taining the work required from their respective sections, a 
copy of the whole being in possession of the superintendent, 
which shows the hour and day every street within the city 
is cleansed throughout the week or year. 

The men are uniformed and supplied by the city with 
their tools. 

For further details your committee would refer to the 
report of Mr. Superintendent Walworth, kindly sent them 
and hereto appended, and to the Treasurer’s report for the 
year 1876 for details of cost, which was in all say £28,412, 
or $142,060. 

But the most interesting matter in connection with Man¬ 
chester is the disposition of its refuse. Situated far 
inland, its only water communication the river Irwell, 
against the contamination of which the Rivers Pollution 
Commissioners have set their faces as a flint, the entire 
elder portion of the town dependent upon the old-fashioned 
privy as the receptacle for excrement, here, indeed, was a 
community that might well cry out, “What shall we do 
with our refuse \ ” 

But the cry was brief, and in response to well-directed 


39 


effort the answer came. Under the direction of the Health 
Board, yards were selected and purchased by the corpora¬ 
tion, where the refuse is sorted, that which is salable sold, 
that which is useless burned, and the remainder converted 
into manure and sold. Even the very urine of the city is 
utilized. We quote here a few words from the report of 
the Health officer for 1876. “ In 1875 the refuse collected by 

the Health Committee weighed 147,097 tons. The compo¬ 
sition of the material may be judged from the following an¬ 
alysis of a single week’s collection : 

Paper, 1 ton. 

Dead animals, 2 tons. 

Rags, 3 tons. 

Stable manure, 17 tons. 

Meat tins and old cans and iron, 33 tons. 

Slaughterhouse refuse, 60 tons. 

Broken pots, glasses, etc., 80 tons. 

Vegetable refuse, 90 tons. 

Faeces and fine ashes, 1,200 tons. 

Cinders, 1,344 tons. 

“Of these materials the dead animals, slaughter-house 
refuse, and a portion of the faecal matter and fine ashes are 
incorporated by grinding, together with a quantity of putrid 
fish, and formed into manure, the ammonia being con¬ 
verted into sulphate as it is evolved. The mixture is satu¬ 
rated with urine, a portion of which has undergone concen¬ 
tration. Of this manure 1,500 tons were manufactured and 
sold. The broken pots, bottles and glass, burr and slag, 
fine coal and a portion of the cinders, with similar matter, 
are ground up with sand and lime into mortar of excellent 
quality, and of this 3,500 tons were sold. The old iron 
and tins are readily disposed of, as the demand is con¬ 
siderable, probably for the manufacture of copperas. The 
rags and paper are scarcely in sufficient quantity at 
present for full utilization, but as the new system is 
developed they will be better worth the trouble of sepa¬ 
ration. The vegetable refuse we have at present no use 


40 


for, and we believe it best to reduce tbeir volume by 
burning or carbonization. The ash or charcoal may 
be used as absorbents for liquid excreta. The cin¬ 
ders are utilized as fuel for heating the boiler which drives 
the machinery. The arrangements made by the Health 
Committee have enabled them to dispose of the night soil 
as fast as it has been received. The urine, which so pre¬ 
ponderates relatively to the solid matter, instead of running 
into the rivers and sewers, can now be evaporated rapidly 
and at a low temperature, so as to preserve its quality, and 
its bulk be reduced to a convenient quantity.” 

Your committee submit this interesting report as an ex¬ 
hibit and also a most exhaustive pamphlet on the utilization 
of the refuse of large towns, by Mr. Whiley, the engineer 
in charge of the Manchester Works. When we examine 
this report, remembering the small cost of this work, and 
contrast it with the clamor of our officials as to their ina¬ 
bility to get rid of only a portion of the refuse thus dealt 
with, we are forced to exclaim, “Verily, the gods help 
those who help themselves.” 

If, without giving further details in possession of your 
committee as to other cities, we compare the figures and 
results above given with the estimates presented by our 
Board of Police for 1878, they give warrant enough for our 
assertion, that this department is wasting the money of the 
taxpayers in unnecessary and exorbitant salaries and 
wages, that even if the city were well cleaned the amount 
expended therefor would be altogether too high, but that 
in view of the condition of the streets for the last year the 
expenditure of $725,000, or any like sum, no purchase of 
new material forming part thereof, is simply absurd, and 
calls for the severest censure on those charged with its ad¬ 
ministration. 

If any doubt still exists on this point, your committee 
desire to simply cite a remark made to your committee by 
a gentleman high in office in the department, to this ef¬ 
fect :—“ Gfentlemen,” said he, “ if I had the cleaning of the 


41 


city, untrammeled by political influence or dictation, I 
could keep it as clean as a parlor floor for $400,000 a year, 
and retire in two years rich enough for all my wants.’’ 
With this remark we close the third branch of our inquiry. 

We now take up the last and most important question 
of all. What remedy can be found for these abuses? 
The first step lies with all good citizens, and consists 
in the formation of a healthy public opinion on the 
question of the duties of public officials. Men with 
large interests in this city have so neglected their duties of 
citizenship, have in the hurry of private business so per¬ 
mitted their public interests to go by default, that they have 
themselves alone to blame for the change in public senti¬ 
ment since Thomas Jefferson wrote his memorable words 
describing the province of officials in this country, “To 
cultivate peace and maintain commerce and navigation in 
all their lawful enterprises, to preserve the faith of the 
nation by an exact discharge of its debts and contracts, to 
expend the public money with the same care and econ¬ 
omy we would practice with our own, and impose on our 
citizens no unnecessary burdens.” Now, alas! it seems 
the aim of most public men, and this aim is generally con¬ 
sidered proper and praiseworthy, to secure office for per¬ 
sonal emolument, and having secured it, so to administer it 
as to retain it as long as possible, using the public funds in 
their hands in such a manner as to secure influence to 
themselves and form a band of retainers whose duty is 
not to render service to the community, but blind obe¬ 
dience to those who give them place and pay. The 
duty of all good citizens is to change public sentiment 
on this point, and we as a society should pledge our¬ 
selves henceforth to condemn the existing system of place¬ 
giving and employment, to hold up any public official who 
knowingly pays extravagant wages from the public purse— 
and by extravagant we mean anything in excess of what 
unskilled labor commands in the open market—who em- 


42 


ploys incompetent men, either of his own motion or at the 
dictation of others, and who in any way creates and main¬ 
tains sinecures, as false to his trust and deserving of censure 
at the hands of his constituents. Constant dropping wears 
away the hardest rock, and if this course he faithfully per¬ 
sisted in, if citizens and taxpayers will insist on looking 
into the expenditure of their money, and not hesitate when 
abuses are found to bring them before the public on their 
individual responsibility ; if, in one word, they will accept 
the term recently flung at them in opprobrium from the 
Bench, and form a corps of “ whippers in” of morality, 
good order, and economy, we shall see the day when fitness 
for office will be the only consideration in selection of candi¬ 
dates ; when those chosen to office shall pride themselves 
in using public moneys with as much care as if those 
moneys were drawn from their own private purse, and 
when the chief ambition of officials will be to receive as 
their highest reward the public commendation, u Well 
done, good and faithful servant.” 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

But, pending the advent of this political millennium, what 
is the best course for the city to adopt in cleansing the 
streets ? 

Your committee, as the result of their best reflection and 
judgment, would recommend taking the street cleaning out 
of the hands of a political board and placing it under the 
control of an intelligent specialist, who has studied and 
understands the subject, and who shall act as superintend¬ 
ent. Let him be appointed by the Mayor, and let the ap¬ 
pointment be peremptory, not subject to confirmation by 
the Board of Aldermen. Let him proceed to district the 
city into not less than thirty districts, and advertise for 
proposals to clean and sweep the streets of each dis¬ 
trict and remove the ashes therefrom from one class 
of contractors, and for proposals to collect and re- 


43 


move garbage for each district from another and dis¬ 
tinct class of contractors. The garbage collectors to 
seek the garbage within the houses, and not one 
pound of it to be permitted to be put into the open 
street for collection. Each contractor should give 
satisfactory bonds, and his contract should be forfeitable 
by the Superintendent on proof of continued neglect of 
duty; for first offences let him be notified to repair the 
omission; if the notification be not complied with, let the 
work be done by the Superintendent and the cost thereof 
charged to the contractor and deducted from his monthly 
pay. For small districts specifications could readily be 
drawn, which might not so easily be prepared were the 
cleaning of the entire city let in one large contract. We 
append the printed forms of contract used in Philadelphia 
as an example. Let the Superintendent select and appoint 
an inspector for each district, whose duty shall be to note, 
in books prepared for the purpose, the condition of each 
street in his district in each day of the year. The inspec¬ 
tors may be changed from district to district at the pleas¬ 
ure of the Superintendent, in order to obviate too great 
intimacy with any one contractor. Let regular com¬ 
plaint books be opened at certain stations in each dis¬ 
trict, and let it be understood that any complaints 
therein recorded by any citizen over his name and ad¬ 
dress shall be properly and promptly noticed. Give 
the entire supervision of the whole work to the Board of 
Health, who shall in case of dereliction of duty on the part 
of superintendent or inspectors have power to prefer charges 
against him or them to the Mayor, who shall, on proof 
being made, promptly remove the offender. 

Such in brief is the outline of the system we would re¬ 
commend. It is that in use in Philadelphia, and, all things 
being considered, seems to us best calculated to meet exist¬ 
ing wants here. It contemplates little or no patronage. 
If the Mayor appoints the proper man as superin¬ 
tendent, and he alone has the selection and appoint- 


44 


ment of inspectors,—the only employees under the 
system, save the few clerks necessary to keep the ac¬ 
counts,—he should he able to withstand any outside pres¬ 
sure in the choice of his subordinates. Knowing that he 
alone will be held responsible for the condition of the city 
he will be apt to hold his contractors to the strictest per¬ 
formance of their work. No new material need be pur¬ 
chased by public funds ; the contractors should supply 
their own apparatus. Ordinances should be passed 
inflicting a penalty upon the owner of any tenement 
before which any garbage was found, either on the 
street or mixed with ashes in barrels. These penal¬ 
ties should be enforced by the Board of Health, on 
complaint of the superintendent or inspector, whose duty it 
shall be to furnish the necessary evidence. The legislation 
needed to inaugurate and perfect this system would be 
trifling. Under it the cleaning of each street in the city 
could be contracted for, to take place on specified days in 
each week, and any default could be traced at once. The 
question of wages paid for labor would be settled by each 
contractor for himself, and no temptation to demagogism 
could thus exist. Dumping places would be found readily 
enough were the work once in private hands. In one word, 
the system seems to work a radical reform in each one of 
the evils we have passed in review. We do not affirm 
that it would cure them at once ; but we believe that in a 
very short time the work would be done better and more 
cheaply than ever before. 

We have had other systems under consideration, notably 
one proposed by Professor Chandler, known as the block 
system, whereby one man is placed in charge of a certain 
number of blocks, with the sole responsibility of keeping 
them in order. The lateness of the hour forbids an elaborate 
detail of this system, which we hope will be fully set forth at 
a later day by Professor Chandler himself, in a paper prom¬ 
ised us by him. All other systems considered by us offer 
too great temptations to patronage and political dictation. 


45 


which of all things should he carefully avoided. We have, 
therefore, decided to recommend the Philadelphia system, 
as above detailed. 

One word before we close. While we have nothing ex¬ 
tenuated, we have set down naught in malice. If we shall 
be considered harsh in calling abuses by their right names, 
we answer that the time for dainty words has passed. 
When men who have placed the savings of a lifetime into 
real estate in this city, thinking it the safest investment for 
their children, find themselves forced to abandon their 
property from inability to meet the enormous taxes levied 
upon it at valuations far above its salable price ; when the 
heaviest burden which this sorely burdened people has to 
bear is the annual impost laid upon them to provide good 
government and all that a good government should offer its 
citizens ; when, after pinching and saving to meet that im¬ 
post, and providing it in sums sufficient to supply the best 
and fittest of everything, it sees a large portion of those 
revenues turned aside to utterly unworthy objects, serving 
to fasten upon the body politic a horde of idlers, whose only 
business and office it is to perpetuate the rotten system which 
has brought them into being, realizing the old Greek fable 
in the spectacle of this mighty city, bound hand and foot to 
be delivered over to a flock of loathsome creatures, draw¬ 
ing from her very vitals the nutriment which gives them 
strength to flout and dishonor her, shall we sit idly by and 
make no sign \ If ever there was a time when it was ex¬ 
pedient as well as right to speak plainly, now is the time ; 
and your committee, feeling this, have not attempted to shirk 
their duty. Personally they have none but the kindest 
feeling to the Police Commissioners, who have afforded 
them every facility in the prosecution of their inquiries ; 
but as exponents of the system of paying high wages for 
worthless labor and of appointments to place under dicta¬ 
tion they, in the judgment of your committee, are lacking 
in duty to the public, whose servants they are, and are 
therefore subject to rebuke. 


46 


Your committee herewith submit the following docu¬ 
ments as exhibits to this Report, and ask to be dis¬ 
charged : 

A. —Written answers of the Police Board to questions of your 

committee. 

B. —List of Foremen, Gangmen, Cartmen, etc., with their occu¬ 

pations. 

C. —Estimates of the Departments and Officers of the City of 

New York, including, at page 49, the Street Cleaning esti¬ 
mates. 

D. —Letter from Commissioner Nichols to T. M. Adams, dated 

Dec. 28, 1877. 

E. —Interview with Commissioner Nichols, as reported in the 

N. Y. World. 

F. —Report of Conference of City Officials on Street Cleaning, 

reported in N. Y. Tribune. 

G. —Statistics as to Boston Street Cleaning, furnished by the 

Superintendent to your committee. 

H. —Letter of President Davis of the Board of Health in Phila¬ 

delphia, accompanied by blank forms of contracts, inspec¬ 
tors 7 returns, etc., in use under their system. 

I. —Memoranda of methods in use in Liverpool on Street Clean¬ 

ing, furnished by Superintendent Reynolds of that city, 
and accompanied by 

a. — Blank returns and forms of reports handed in by the Sub- 

Inspectors to the head office, Liverpool. 

b. and c. —Circulars as to price of refuse, heretofore quoted. 

d .— Abstract of the Receipts and Expenditures under the 
sanitary acts of the borough of Liverpool for 1876, pages 
18 and 19 giving details as to cost of street cleaning. 

L.—Full memoranda as to Street Cleaning in Manchester, Eng¬ 
land, furnished by Superintendent Walworth of that city, 
accompanied by 

a. —Report of the officers of the Board of Health for Manches¬ 

ter for the year 1876. See pages 39, 40, 41 and 42, 

b. —Treasurer’s statement of receipts and expenditures, Man¬ 

chester, England. See pages 110 and 112. 


47 


c .—Two pamphlets on the utilization of the refuse of towns, 
by Henry Whiley, Esq., Engineer of the Manchester 
Works. 

M. —Memorandum on Street Cleaning in London, furnished by 

the Clerk of the Metropolitan Board of Works. 

N. —Drawings of garbage and other carts in use in Liverpool. 

O. —Report of Borough Engineer to the Health Board of Liver¬ 

pool for 1869, detailing, on pages 45 to 49 inclusive, the 
inception of the present system prevailing in that city. 

P. —Report of Superintendent of Scavenging for borough of 

Liverpool for 1875. 

THATCHER M. ADAMS, > 

JACKSON S. SCHULTZ, f Committee. 

New Yoke, Jan. 8, 1878. 


48 


After the reading of the Report, and the adoption of a 
Resolution ordering it to be printed, Commissioner Erhardt, 
who was present, arose, and availing himself of the rule of 
the Society, which invites free expression of opinion from 
all present, without regard to their membership of the 
Society, suggested the justice of allowing the Police Com¬ 
missioners to prepare a statement of their side of the 
question, which should be printed together with the 
Report, 

On motion of Mr. Charles Stewart Smith, seconded by 
Mr. Adams, a resolution was unanimously adopted, re¬ 
questing the Police Commissioners, through Mr. Erhardt, 
to furnish to the Society such statement, and that, on re¬ 
ceipt thereof, it be printed together with the Report; under 
direction of the Executive Committee. 

The following letter, addressed to the Society, and which 
appears in the World of January 11th, explains why the 
Report of the Committee appears without such accompany¬ 
ing statement: 


Police Headquarters, ) 
New York, January 10, 1878. £ 

To the Municipal Reform Association: 

Gentlemen —Referring to the meeting of the Municipal Reform Asso¬ 
ciation, held on the 7th inst., to hear the report of the Committee on 
Street Cleaning, and to the opportunity then kindly offered to me to 
make a counter-statement, to he attached to the printed report, I beg 
leave to thank the Association for their kind intention, and to state 
that the sole motive for making any counter-statement consisted in the 
desire to have it given to the public attached to the printed report. 
Inasmuch as the entire report appeared in the newspapers of the next 
morning, no valuable result would follow any late publication of a 
counter-statement, and I therefore thank you again, and am 

Yours respectfully, 


JOEL B. ERHARDT. 


49 


Upon the receipt of this letter, the President of the 
Municipal Society at once communicated with Mr. Erhardt, 
renewing the offer to print any statement which the Police 
Commissioners might desire published, in connection with 
the Report, then about to appear in pamphlet shape. The 
communication was acknowledged, but the Police Commis¬ 
sioners have not availed themselves of the offer. 


The Committee, in revising their report for publication, 
find that, should all the exhibits therein referred to be 
printed and annexed to the Report, as was at first contem¬ 
plated, the pamphlet would reach formidable dimensions— 
too formidable for the general reader. They have, there¬ 
fore, thought it best to omit publication of the exhibits, 
with one exception—that of Exhibit B, which gives the 
names, occupations, and salaries, of the foremen and gang- 
men employed by the Street Cleaning Department. The 
original of this, together with all the other exhibits referred 
to in the Report, have been deposited in the Archives of 
the New York Municipal Society, where they are subject 
to the examination of all who desire to inspect or to study 
them. 

Such examination and study will well repay the time 
devoted thereto, and will, as your Committee believes, fully 
corroborate every assertion of their Report. 



50 


EXHIBIT B. 

LIST OF SALARIED EMPLOYEES, WITH AMOUNT OF 
SALARY PAID. 

Supt. Bureau — 

John Gunner, Captain.$2,000 00 

Peter Zule, Captain, detailed. 2,000 00 

David Stevens, Roundsman, detailed. 1,200 00 

Henry Hedden, Captain, detailed.-. 2,000 00 

James Adams, Officer, detailed. 1,200 00 

Pep. Inspector —Geo. W. Plunkett. 2,500 00 

Supt. Stables —Robert J. Wylie. 1,500 00 

Chief Cleric— Jno. B. Greene. 3,000 00 

Pay-Roll Cleric —Wm. H. McCorkle. 2,000 00 

Time Cleric —G. Joseph Rusch. 1,500 00 

Cleric to Commissioner —E. H. Lawrence. 1,500 00 

“ “ Office— Geo. W. Van Brunt. 1,200 00 

Record Cleric —S. H. Ingersoll. 1,200 00 

Map Cleric— S. H. Hoe. 1,200 00 

Telegraph Operators — 

Richard Battin. 900 00 

Martin Dixon. 700 00 

Foremen Street Cleaning — 

John O’Leary. 1,000 00 

James Gardiner. 1,000 00 

Jeremiah Hays. 1,000 00 

Edward Hallock. 1,000 00 

Peter Haslam. 1,000 00 

Edward Mulry. 1,000 00 

Daniel J. Stevens. 1,000 00 

Robert E. Stan wood. 1,000 00 

John Small, 2 Scammel St... .. 1,000 00 

Mortimer Sullivan. 1,000 00 

Thomas Coakley. 1,000 00 

Michael Lynch. 1,000 00 

Owen Healy. 1,000 00 

Mark F. Haley. 1,000 00 

John Miller. 1,000 00 

































51 


John T. Ryan. $1,000 00 

Patrick McDavitt. 1,000 00 

H. E. Hugh son. 1,000 00 

George W. Farley.. 1,000 00 

Patrick Moore. 1,000 00 

Dump Inspectors — 

Thomas Ryan. 800 00 

Wm. McKenna. 800 00 

John Crossin. 800 00 

John H. McCoy. 800 00 

Thomas Moore....... 800 00 

John Jacobs.. 800 00 

John Moore_..... 800 00 

Francis Gaffney. 800 00 

Michael Kenney. 800 00 

Wm. L. Wemmell. 800 00 

Peter F. Rafferty. 800 00 

Wm. J. Smith. 800 00 

Geo. W. Williams. 800 00 

Charles Packer. 800 00 

Captains, Tug— 

Wm. H. Rightmeyer. 1,440 00 

Abram Van Leuren... 1,440 00 

Engineers, Tug — 

Alfred Delanoy. 1,140 00 

John Conway. 1,140 00 

Firemen, Tug — 

John McKeon. 720 00 

Alonzo Ingram. 720 00 

Deck Hands, Tug — 

C. B. Andrews. 720 00 

Patrick Kiernan .- - - ^ -. 720 00 

Stewards, Tug — 

Thomas Roach.-. 720 00 

Thomas Christie...720 00 































62 


District. Name. Occupation. Position. 

1st Ward. Chas. E. Bostwick.. .Merchant.Foreman. 

(Firm, Bridge, Bostwick & Co., 34 Murray and 19 Park Place, Furriers.) 

Michael Corliss.Caulker.Gangman. 

John A. Mitchell_Laborer. “ 

And 18 Cartmen. 

.Foreman. 
.Gangman. 
u 

And 21 Cartmen. 


3d and 5th James Gardiner.Engineer.Foreman. 

Wards. James Thompson_Speculator.Gangman. 


Pat. H. Philips.Watchman. u 

And 18 Cartmen. 


2d and 4th John O’Leary.Mason... 

Wards. Thomas O’Brien.Machinist 

Wm. C. Sammons.. .Clerk_ 


7th Ward. Jeremiah Hayes.Baker.Foreman. 

John Dennice.Watchman.Gangman. 

Edward Brown.Boarding House... u 

And 9 Cartmen. 

8th Ward. George H. Farley.. .Clerk.Foreman. 

Lazarus Glanberg . .Pocketbook maker Gangman. 

Andrew Smith.Cartman. u 

And 16 Cartmen. 

.Foreman 

.Gangman. 
a 

And 14 Cartmen. 

10th Ward. Edward Mulry.Contractor.Foreman. 

Stephen Myers.Cigarmaker.Gangman. 

Edward Horan.Fireman. u 

And 16 Cartmen. 


9th Ward. Edward Hallock_Clerk... 

Francis Body.Grainer.. 

Geo. W. Nicholson. .Merchant 


11th Ward. D. J. Stevens.Clerk.Foreman. 

Wm. Fitzgerald.Gangman. 

Robert Martin......Watchman. “ 

And 8 Cartmen. 


12th, 23d and Robert E. Stan wood.Foreman. 

24th Wards. John R. Flood.Gangman. 

Charles Hesson. .. “ 









































53 


District. 

12th, 23d and 
24th Wards. 


13th Ward. 


6th and 14th 
Wards. 


15th Ward. 


16th Ward. 


17th Ward. 


18 th Ward. 


19th Ward. 


20th Ward. 


Name. Occupation. Position. 

William Walsh.Gang man. 

Gilbert Palmer.. “ 


And 20 Cartmen. 

.Foreman. 

.Gangman. 

u 

And 7 Cartmen. 

-Foreman. 

.Gangman. 


And 19 Cartmen. 

Thomas Coakley_Cartman.Foreman. 

John Carroll.Watchman.Gangman. 

Asa H. Bogar.Machinist. 11 

And 13 Cartmen. 

Patrick Moore.Livery stable.Foreman. 

John J. Moran..Liquor dealer.Gangman. 

James Mallon.Laborer. “ 

And 14 Cartmen. 

Owen Healy.Liquor dealer.Foreman. 

George Robbins.Feed.Gangman. 

John Coughlin.Polisher marble... “ 

And 14 Cartmen. 

Mark F. Healy.Clerk.Foreman., 

Charles Hartley.Barber.Gangman.. 

Charles G. Banks... Clerk.*- - - 

And 20 Cartmen. 


John Small.Clerk. 

Thomas Leahy.Fireman_ 

Joseph Ogle..>.Coal dealer 

Mortimer Sullivan.. .Officer. 

John Fallon. 

James Hart. 


John Miller.Stevedore.Foreman. 

David Carroll.Clerk.Gangman. 

Thomas Graney.Stevedore. 

Thomas Butler.Printer.. 

Aud 35 Cartmen. 


John T. Ryan. 
James Ellicott 
Miohael Hynes. 


Painter.Foreman. 

Clerk.Gangman. 


And 18 Cartmen. 


4 















































54 


District. Name. Occupation. Position. 

21st Ward. Patrick McDavitt... Wire worker.Foreman. 

Robert R. Campbell .Ice dealer.Gangman. 

Joseph Dunn.Cartman. u 

And 19 Cartmen. 

Foreman. 

Gangman. 
u 

And 29 Cartmen. 


22d Ward. Henry E. Hughson. .Teacher 

Terence Riley.Officer.. 

William Aiken.Mason.. 


Broadway. Edward Sherlock_Laborer.Acting Foreman. 

Avenues William Leonard .. .Liquor ..Foreman. 

East and Andrew Black.Clerk.Gangman. 

West. James Hamilton_Mason. u 

Charles Lyons. u 

James McVey. u 

John Horbelt. (4 


Maurice Reed, detailed Foreman to Capt. Gunner. 

James Boyd, Gangman to Capt. Gunner. 

Edward Freeborn, clerk, Frank McNamara, bookkeeper, Gangmen, 
detailed as clerks to office. 


John Jacobs. 

John Moore. 

Michael O’Connor.. 

Michael Kenney_ 

Wm. L. Wemmell.. 
Peter F. Rafferty... 
William J. Smith... 
George W. W T illiams 

Charles Packer. 

Thomas Ryan. 

William McKenna.. 

John Crossin. 

John H. McCoy. 

Thomas Moore. 


DUMP INSPECTORS. 


. .Merchant. 

.. .Market St., 

E. R. 

. .Marble Cutter... 

...Jackson 

u 

u 

. .Fireman. 

...Stanton 

u 

u 



u 

u 

. .Pattern Maker... 

...17th 

u 

u 

..Clerk. 

...22d 

u 

u 

. .Machinist. 

...37th 

a 

u 

. .Cabinet Maker... 

...46th 

u 

u 

..Contractor. 

...86th 

u 

u 

. .Mineral Water... 

...Laight St., 

N. R. 

u u 

. 12tli 

u 

a 

. .Surveyor. 

...21st 

u 

u 

. .Cellar Digger_ 

...37th 

u 

u 

. .Clerk. 

...47th 

u 

a 


































































4 c ' ■■ A V. i 


library OF CONGRESS 


0 022 219 149 A 


’i- ' jr\ - -• rJ- 








• * .V v x- 

.. f.. v • *p-> ;: ■ > '/ 

■ v; V ' ".r " ;*V. 

’ - ■' . VJ 

4 l 








■ 




'/>v£\$sYr'&im 

' 

v & *V a, 


vs4'^ 


- 

v ' -■ "V ■ y . . * ■ ■ . . ' W 


- 3 * '' 


?;•' .. V ' •' %'W 

-■ l ' • ■rfy.y jft - . •l*> • — 

;#• ?-gmm 

. 

¥ 4 ?';^v; 

, ' ■ , u '■ "'■ 

, • 1 \ S3S 

• ' v ; ' ’. v - • , > 

■ \ •I-:"-:.'" 


- 

„ - : r ; ■ • ; Wry. 


m 


w 




m : w’ m., 

f > s*vW^' 

< rW 
> : - . v , * 

YW 

• ^ ;: v ; ; Vv^ 


4 * # 


v' ‘^'Vf:■ ! ' . -• A'vOi;■ 

' S' -ifr! . ■ r - - -•w y 4 'v v v<<* 

■ :.^V :-lr y ■■ ' ■ \ , 



